PSYCHOLOGY OF POVERTY

ANUP KUMAR SINGH AND JANAK PANDEY

Poverty is one of the most investigated areas in the social sciences. It is a multifaceted phenomenon. However, a
psychological aspect of poverty has not been adequately explored. This paper highlights the social psychological
perspective on poverty. Several conceptions of poverty and various assessment approaches are critically evaluated.
Lastly, the issues and emerging trends in the area of the social psychology of poverty are discussed.

Mr. Anup Kumar Singh is with the Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Mr. Janak Pandey is with the Department of Psychology, University of Allahabad.

Poverty is one of the most disturbing problems which India is facing. Almost one person
out of two, does not have an adequate standard of living. According to official sources,
40 per cent of Indians are below the poverty line. But, there are millions of people living
just above the poverty line, whose conditions are little better than those of the official
poor (Nauriyal and Raghuvanshi, 1987). Poverty inhibits the proper utilization of human
resources for productivity and national development. The human resources of the poor,
in turn, cannot be developed due to the general scarcity of resources. Thus, there exists
a vicious cycle of poverty which needs intervention at various levels.

Need for the Psychological Perspective

Poverty has generally been considered as the lack of material resources, which inhibits
the satisfaction of minimum basic needs. In turn, the measurement of poverty involves
converting the material resources into monetary value and judging how many people
do not have the requisite money. This approach is mainly economic in nature. Such an
approach contributes to our understanding of poverty; however, it is not sufficient,
because poverty is a multifaceted phenomenon. A consummate understanding of
poverty necessitates an indepth study of its psychological, sociological, cultural and
political dimensions. The psychological dimension refers to behavioural, experiential
and perceptual aspects of poverty. The sociological aspect, on the other hand, is related
to class and caste dynamics in the perpetuation of poverty. Further, the cultural facet is
concerned with the values and family life of the poor. Lastly, the political dimension
focuses on how different interest groups have conflicts among themselves about poverty
related issues.

Poverty is not just the scarcity of material resources; it is more tangible in that individuals
also perceive and experience it, and behaviourally adapt to the conditions of deprivation.
The economic and psychological aspects of poverty are two sides of the same coin.
The latter aspect, however, has not been explored in the same proportion as the former.
Probably, policy makers wanted more information about the number of poor and poverty
levels, which resulted in greater emphasis being placed on the economic aspect of
poverty. In addition, the importance of psychological dimension of poverty for policy
making was not appreciated. However, the economic approach to poverty perse has
failed to explicate the complexity of the phenomenon of poverty.
624 Anup Kumar Singh and Janak Pandey

A psychological perspective on poverty is needed for a variety of reasons. First,

perceptions and causal attributions of a phenomenon are major determinants of
behaviour. Thus, the way people causally explain poverty, affects their responses to the
poor, and their attitudes towards societal inequality. Perceptions of one's socioeconomic
conditions also influence an individual's affective characteristics (like self-esteem and
level of aspiration), reactions to the existing conditions, and interactions with others.
Second, the lack of money does not directly affect an individual's psychological
characteristics. As we have discussed, poverty is not just lack of money; it is accom-
panied by other economic, social, psychological, cultural and political factors, such as
unemployment, debt, lack of civic amenities, homelessness, dilapidated houses, lack
of warm emotional climate, alienation, helplessness, subcultural norms and values and
political apathy. All these factors together generate a vicious cycle of poverty. Therefore,
in many cases, even if their income goes up, the poor may not be able to get out of
poverty. Third, poverty influences human beings, their emotions, their cognitions and
their social interactions. The social psychology of poverty leads us to explore the human
aspect of poverty; otherwise, we are left in the jungle of numbers and statistics.

What follows is an attempt to delineate the psychological perspective of poverty. We

shall particularly survey conceptualization and measurement of poverty from a social
psychological viewpoint.

Psychological Research on Poverty in India

Social scientists in India began pondering seriously over the problem of poverty in the
sixties. The forerunners in the study of poverty were economists, followed by
sociologists. The economists were mainly concerned with measuring the poverty line
and interpreting economic disparity at regional, national and international levels. The
sociologists concentrated on the study of the social class, social mobility and the
structural analysis of poverty. They also studied class and caste interaction. The
psychologists, by and large, investigated the effects of socioeconomic deprivation on
various psychological characteristics.

Psychologists were relatively late entrants in the field of poverty. Systematic research
on the effects of socioeconomic inequality on human behaviour began in the United
States in the fifties. Indian psychologists started working in the area of psychology of
poverty in the sixties, and it came into mainstream psychology in the seventies. Over
these three decades, psychologists were mainly interested in the way the poor differ
from the non-poor people in behavioural, cognitive, affective, attitudinal and mental
health processes (Allen, 1970; Bee, 1974; Moulik, 1981; Shanmugham, 1976; Sinha,
1975).

Psychological Conception of Poverty

As discussed earlier, psychologists were greatly influenced by sociologists and

economists in the area of poverty research. They borrowed concepts and measures
from economics and sociology. In early psychological research on poverty, they did not
conceptualize poverty from the psychological viewpoint. They used concepts, such as
socioeconomic status (Pareek and Trivedi, 1964; Verma, 1980), caste (Das, Jachuk
and Panda, 1970; Das and Singha, 1975), and income as proxies of poverty. Probably,
psychologists thought that the analysis of the nature of poverty was beyond their
purview, and it was a subject matter for economists and sociologists to study.
 Psychology of Poverty 625

In the past two decades, the blind application of sociological and economic concepts of
poverty, has been seriously questioned by psychologists. They realized that although
the economic approach to poverty is useful for enumeration and classification purposes,
it has little utility for the social psychological understanding of the poor. Another problem
with the use of economic measures is that poverty gets treated as a unitary conceptual
category, which implies that the poor are monolith. Theoretically, it means that because
they are in the same category income-wise, they are also alike socially, psychologically,
culturally and politically. Likewise, its policy implication is that all poverty groups should
be intervened in the same fashion for poverty amelioration. Both assumptions are
questionable.

The issue of the poor as a unitary category, has no relevance in Indian conditions, where
though mass poverty persists, the poor have different subgroupings. The poorest of the
poor are beggars, pavement dwellers, and homeless sick people. Manual workers,
hawkers and vendors form another group. They have more stability and participation in
social life. Further, the organized, educated, and politically conscious poor vary from
the socially isolated poor. In the same way, we should distinguish between the urban
and rural poor. The urban poor are more exposed to modernization which, in turn, makes
them more aware of their rights, privileges, and powers. The dynamics of rural poverty
is even more complex. We may find various categories of the poor in villages, such as
bonded labourers, landless labourers, manual labourers with little land, scheduled caste,
backward caste and high caste poor who differ among themselves on different social
and psychological dimensions. For example, even if a scheduled caste individual and
a caste Hindu poor are at the same economic level of deprivation, they may differ largely
in terms of social prestige, social support resources and interaction with the mainstream
of society.

Now, even economists have begun to recognize that the poor have different subgroup-
ings. For example, Johri and Jain (1982) divided the poor into severe destitutes and the
poor. In the same vein, Mundle (1984) divided the poor into below, well below, and far
below the official poverty line. Unless different poverty groups are recognized, we cannot
develop relevant theoretical frameworks. As a result, poverty programmes will not serve
the needs of different poverty groups effectively.

Heterogeneity also lies in the social psychological domain. Miller (1964) classified the
poor on the basis of two dimensions, namely family stability and income. The former
dimension is social psychological while the latter is an economic one. Thus, he proposed
four groups of the poor: the stable poor, the strained poor, the copers-skidders and the
unstable poor. The four poverty groups differ in their life style and behavioural charac-
teristics. In the Indian context, Husain and Sarup (1979) described three levels of
poverty: ascending, descending, and constant poverty. Ascending poverty refers to
increase in liabilities due to newer family and social problems. On the other hand,
descending poverty indicates reduction in liabilities due to newer economic avenues
and higher social support. In constant poverty, the income-expenditure ratio remains
balanced for a long time.

The foregoing critique of application of economic concepts in the psychological research

on poverty suggests that psychological conception of poverty should also be considered.
There have been some efforts to understand poverty from the psychological perspective.
In this section, we shall critically evaluate them.
626 Anup Kumar Singh and Janak Pandey

In the early sixties, Harrington (1962) emphasized the need for conceptualizing poverty
from a psychological viewpoint. He suggested that poverty should be defined
psychologically in the context of the very poor people who are almost alien to the society
in which they live and who invariably almost always develop such negative attitudes that
they cannot avail of new opportunities. Harrington is one of the early social scientists
who stressed the need for the psychological conception of poverty. His approach was
to define the poor in terms of attitudes of the poor and their alienation from the
mainstream of society.

Pareek defined poverty as "deprivation and helplessness". According to him, "the poor
are deprived not only of the minimum adequate provisions of physical life, but also of
adequate sensory, social and emotional stimuli necessary for the development of a
normal individual" (1970:301). This definition focuses on two features. First, it depicts
that poverty is the lack of physical as well as social psychological stimuli. The physical
environment, in which the poor are nourished and to which they adapt, is different from
that of the middle class. The social environment of the poor is also different in many
respects, such as language, customs and social norms. The other salient feature of this
definition is that the poor are unable to control and predict their environment and they
do not have the social power to change their conditions. These psychological conditions
result in helplessness. However, the conceptual weakness of this definition is that,
poverty is defined in terms of consequences. Helplessness per se does not represent
poverty. It is on the contrary, a product of poverty.

Kureshi and Husain have noted a need for a psychological definition of poverty which
should include, "a thwarting of need gratification and yearning for self-expression, a
morbid dependence on others, lack of confidence and trust in inner resources, jealousy
and hatred against the real or perceived authors of one's wretched plight" (1983:37).
This conception of poverty stresses the identification of poor on the basis of psychologi-
cal concomitants of poverty. Such an approach is inadequate, both conceptually and
methodologically, on several grounds. Logically, it follows from this definition that all the
poor suffer from psycho-pathological characteristics, which is empirically invalid and
ethically questionable. Moreover, the poor, in this conceptual scheme, will be identified
through psychological attributes and, in turn, they will be tested on similar attributes.
Thus, it leaves us in a circular trap.

Pandey and Singh (1985) have argued that the economic and sociological conceptions
of poverty, should be supplemented by the psychological dimension of poverty, in terms
of an individual's subjective perception of his/her economic conditions of life. The
psychological dimension has been termed as "perceived poverty", which includes the
perception of income in relation to household expenditure, and satisfaction with
economic conditions. In a later study, Singh and Pandey (1989) have revised their
"perceived poverty" concept and called it perceived economic status. The newer concept
is related to the perception of economic conditions as well as the physical quality of
living.

A persistent dilemma persists about defining poverty from the psychological viewpoint
versus not defining poverty in terms of psychological consequences of poverty. As
reviewed earlier, some psychologists have defined poverty as helplessness, depend-
ence, lack of confidence and trust, and so on. Such characteristics reflect the psychologi-
cal syndrome of most of the poor. But they are only concomitants of poverty. They are
 Psychology of Poverty 627

largely caused by lack of money and other material resources. In addition, such
psychological characteristics are not ubiquitous. Our view in this regard is that,
psychologists should not define poverty in terms of psychological concomitants of
poverty, because they are the consequences of poverty and not the indicators.

Another intriguing way to comprehend the psychological dimension of poverty is to

explore how the poor compare themselves with the middle- and upper-class people and
how deprived they feel. Here, we are referring to the concept of relative deprivation,
particularly of fratemalistic relative deprivation (FRD), in which people of one group
compare their group with the other group. In the same way, one may investigate the
comparison processes of the poor in relation to the middle class and rich strata of society.
There has been little research on FRD among the poor. There is also need to explore
the consequences of FRD. This research area can substantially contribute to the
psychological knowledge of poverty.

In sum, the economic concept of poverty suggests that poverty is a unitary category.
This approach, however, is fallible. There are many categories of poor. They differ on
cultural, social, and psychological dimensions. But the economic concept of poverty
ignores these differences. Such lacuna necessitates the psychological conception of
poverty. A brief review of psychological definitions of poverty suggests that they are still
in an exploratory stage. Further, FRD is only another conceptual tool to explore the
psychological dimensions of poverty.

Assessment of Poverty in Social Psychology

A psychological perspective on poverty necessitates the measurement of poverty

relevant to the psychological dimension. In the psychological research on poverty, three
major assessment approaches are available. The first approach is to assess people's
perceptions and feelings about their economic conditions. It taps perceptual and
experiential poverty. This approach is relatively recent. The second approach uses
socioeconomic scales or different constituents of the socioeconomic scale, such as
income, education, caste and occupation. Finally, some psychologists use the depriva-
tion scale to estimate the magnitude of poverty. In the following section, we shall discuss
these assessment approaches in detail.

Assessment of Perception of Poverty: Although subjective-psychological and objective-

economic measures of poverty diverge from each other conceptually., they are still
complementary to each other. The objective and economic measures refer to indicators,
like physical condition, availability of material resources, income, calorie intake, mal-
nutrition, and socioeconomic status. On the other hand, the subjective and psychological
measures indicate the individual's perceptions about their physical and material condi-
tions.

Anandalakshmy (1982) suggested that psychologists should address the issue of

proximal-distal dichotomy in the measurement of poverty. The proximal-distal dichotomy
corresponds to subjective-objective variables. The proximal variables relate to
individuals' perceptions and experiences, while distal variables refer to income, home
settings, and material things. Exploring relationship between proximal and distal vari-
ables, Pandey and Singh (1985) and Singh and Pandey (1989) have reported positive
628 Anup Kumar Singh and Janak Pandey

relationships between the objective (i.e., income and physical quality of living) and the
subjective (perceptions of material and economic conditions) variables of poverty.

Socioeconomic Status Measures: Socioeconomic Status (SES) scales are the most
widely practised tools to differentiate the poor (the lower class) from the non-poor (middle
and upper social classes) individuals, in the psychological research on poverty. As the
name implies, SES scales include both economic and sociological constituents. They
compensate for weaknesses of economic measures on the one hand, and they
represent a deeper and broader picture of social reality on the other. Their multidimen-
sional nature, is claimed to capture most facets of societal inequalities and deprivation.
They also provide researchers with the opportunity to systematically investigate varia-
tions in the psychological attributes as function of one's position in a social structure.

Socioeconomic status scales have been developed for urban (Hollingshead and Red-
lich, 1958; Kuppuswamy, 1962) and rural (Pareek and Trivedi, 1964; Shirpurker, 1967)
areas. The information about socioeconomic status is generally obtained from adults.
Sometimes, children are also asked to provide information about their parents' social
status. In most of the cases, SES scales are paper and pencil tests.

The constituents of socioeconomic scales vary from one instrument to another, ranging
from two to as much as twelve. The most frequent constituents are: occupation,
education, income, housing, and material possessions. The components of
socioeconomic status also depend on the background (rural/urban) they measure.
Socioeconomic status scales for rural areas in India, typically contain items on land,
caste, social participation, farm animals, family types, besides the above mentioned
items (Pareek and Trivedi, 1964; Shirpurker, 1967). Because the different constituents
of the SES scales are not equally important, researchers assign differential weights to
different items. The weights are computed using the regression statistical technique.
The scores on different items are multiplied by weights and a composite score is
computed, on which basis the respondents' social status is determined. We shall not
discuss the procedure of construction of socioeconomic scales here, since it is beyond
the purview of this treatise. However, we shall discuss some important SES scales in
detail.

In the West, the two factor scale of social class developed by Hollingshead and Redlich
(1958), is one of the most popular scales. The scale has two constituents, namely
occupation and education. Initially, the authors recognized 32 occupational categories,
which were then reduced to six categories. The educational constituent had seven
categories. Occupation and education were assigned seven and four weights, respec-
tively. The real scores are multiplied by weights, and composite scores are developed.
Hollingshead and Redlich (1958) identified five social classes.

Among Indian SES scales, the Socio-economic Status Scale (urban) developed by
Kuppuswamy (1962) is extensively used by Indian psychologists. He uses three factors,
namely, education, occupation and income. All these constituents have seven
categories. Each category has been assigned different weights. Kuppuswamy also
recognized five social classes. The scale development and application of
Kuppuswamy's SES scale, is similar to that of Hollingshead and Redlich's (1958) SES
scale.
 Psychology of Poverty 629

Researchers have also questioned socioeconomic status (SES) measures of poverty.

SES scales include many indicators, like income, occupation, education, caste, material
possessions and so on. The various indicators are mixed in one index, which creates
further conceptual confusion. For example, a SES scale includes income, occupation,
and education as its constituents. When an investigator examines the effects of the
socioeconomic status on some psychological dimensions, it is not evident whether he
or she is observing the effects of income, education or occupation. These three
indicators are major sociological variables and they affect different behavioural charac-
teristics differently. It is important to investigate their separate effects on human
behaviour, rather than mixing them into a vague index which neither measures income,
education, nor occupation. Another flaw with the use of SES scales, is that they are
theoretically assumed to be multidimensional, but often their construction and develop-
ment are based on a unidimensional scaling method. Finally, socioeconomic measures
do not focus on the perceived and experiential dimensions of poverty.

Deprivation Measures: Deprivation scales are mostly based on an assumption that lack
of stimulation affects a variety of social psychological processes. Researchers have
studied various aspects of deprivation, such as food, water, sleep, sex, social, cultural
and economic among others. Deprivation scales used in the psychological studies of
poverty are concerned with social, cultural and economic aspects. A number of
deprivation scales developed abroad and in India are available (Davis, 1968; Misra and
Tripathi, 1978; Sahu, 1975; Whiteman and Deutsch, 1968).

The Prolonged Deprivation Scale, developed and standardized by Misra and Tripathi
(1978), is very frequently used in India. It measures 15 areas of deprivation. They are:
(1) housing conditions, (2) home environment, (3) economic sufficiency, (4) food, (5)
clothing, (6) educational experiences, (7) childhood experiences, (8) rearing experien-
ces, (9) parental characteristics, (10) interaction with parents, (11) motivational ex-
periences, (12) emotional experiences, (13) religious experiences, (14) travel and
recreation and (15) miscellaneous Socio-cultural experiences. Further, these 15 areas
are grouped into two categories, based on factor analysis. These factors are: physio-
economic and experiential. The Prolonged Deprivation Scale has shown to have
adequate reliability and validity.

Deprivation scales are very useful instruments in the psychological study of poverty.
Their main focus is on the experiential aspects of poverty. The experiences which a
person under poverty undergoes, are crucial in determining his or her psychological
characteristics and behaviour. Psychologists need to focus more on the impact that their
traumatic experiences have on the poor.

Conclusion

Why do we need a social psychological perspective on poverty? Traditionally, people

have assumed that poverty is an economic problem. However, an indepth study of the
subject suggests that poverty is much more than just lack of money. Poverty occurs in
a human context. It affects people, it disturbs them, and it tortures them. The human
element cannot be segregated from poverty; therefore, we greatly need a social
psychological approach to poverty, and not just an economic one.
630 Anup Kumar Singh and Janak Pandey

Although poverty is a psychological phenomenon, psychologists were laggards in the

study of poverty. One unique contribution of the social psychology of poverty, is that it
emphasizes the existence of various groups of poor, which differ on social, cultural and
psychological dimensions. In addition, they also face different problems with different
solutions. On the other hand, poverty amelioration programmes, which are largely based
on the economic approach, treat all poor people as a single category. Such programmes
may serve the necessities of one section of the poor population, but not all the different
categories.

Another important insight that emanates from the social psychology of poverty, is that
the perception of being poor is not limited by a poverty line. Even a very poor person
may not be haunted by poverty, while a middle class person may continuously suffer
from feelings of deprivation. In our studies (Pandey and Singh, 1985; Singh and Pandey,
1989), we observed a moderate relationship between objective and perceptual in-
dicators of poverty. The findings reveal that while there is a correspondence between
the objective and psychological aspects of poverty, it is not as close as many people
think.

Assessment of poverty in social psychology, has different approaches whose roots can
be investigated in different branches of psychology. They differ in their focus. For
example, SES scales focus more on money and material possessions, while deprivation
scales emphasize the experiential part of poverty. The perceptual and relative depriva-
tion scales stress social comparison processes in the context of poverty. Each approach
has its strengths and weaknesses. However, the use of a particular technique will largely
depend on the purpose and methodological nature of the study.

An intriguing issue here, is how the social psychological perspective on poverty can
contribute to policy making. In the past, social psychologists preferred to be bystanders.
There may be a variety of reasons behind it. First, people in general think that human
behaviour is very difficult to change. Further, economic policies aim to change the
material conditions of people, and not the psychological ones. Therefore, policies aimed
at changing the behaviour of people will be ineffective. Thus, psychologists do not have
a role in policy making. However, ignoring the psychologists' role in policy making in the
present times, is a costly proposition. Policies are concerned with people. Unfortunately,
often a person is lost in numbers, which results in failure of economic programmes.
Social psychologists can significantly contribute to this area, by advising policy makers
about the psychological characteristics of the poor, examining the psychological accep-
tance of poverty amelioration programmes by the poor, assessing the impact of
programmes on the behaviour and personality of the poor, helping in the social
psychological dynamics of policy making and its implementation and so on. The
entrance of social psychologists in policy making about poverty will open vistas of
planning.

REFERENCES

Allen, V. L "Personality correlates of poverty", Allen, V. L. (Ed.) Psychological

1970 Factors in Poverty, 242-266, Chicago: Markham Publishing Com-
pany.
Anandalakshmy, S. "There is a method to the measurement", Sinha, D.,Tripathi, R. C,
1982 and Misra G. (Eds.), Deprivation: Its Social Roots and Psychologi-
cal Consequences, 37-47, New Delhi: Concept Publishing House.
 Psychology of Poverty 631

Bee, H. L. "The effects of poverty", H. L. Bee (Ed.), Social Issues in Develop-

1974 mental Psychology, 220-239, New York: Harper and Row.
Das, J. P.; "Caste, cultural deprivation and cognitive growth", H. C. Haywood
Jachuk, K. and (Ed.) Socio-cultural Aspects of Mental Retardation, 587-606, New
Panda, T. P. York: Appleton-Century-Crafts.
1970
Das, J. P. and "Caste, class, and cognitive competence", Indian Educational
Sinha, P. S. Review, Vol. 10:1-8.
1975
Davis, W. A. Social Class Influences upon Learning, Cambridge: Harvard
1968 University Press.
Deutsch, M.(Ed.) The Disadvantaged Child, New York: Basic Books.
1967
Harrington, M. The Other America: Poverty in the United States, New York:
1962 Macmillan Company.
Hollingshead, A. B. Social Class and Mental Illness, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
and Redlich, F. C.
1958
Husain, M. G. and Poverty levels, ecological styles and cognitive as well as motiva-
Sarup, P. tional competence, Paper presented at All India Conference on
1979 Poverty, Ecology and Cognition, Zakir Husain College, Delhi
University, Delhi.
Johri, C. K. and "The structure of Indian poverty", Indian Journal of Industrial Rela-
Jain, B. K. tions,^. 18:89-118.
1982
Kuppuswamy, B Manual of Socioeconomic Scale, Delhi: Mansayan.
1962
Kureshi, A. and "Poverty: Psychological implication and impact", M. G. Husain (Ed.)
Husain, A. Psychocological Dimensions of Poverty, 35-43, New Delhi:
1983 Manohar.
Miller, S. M. "The American lower classes: A psychological approach", F. Reis-
1964 man, J. Cohen, and A. Pearl (Eds.). Mental Health of the Poor,
139-154, New York: Free Press.
Misra, G. and "Prolonged Deprivation and Scale", Indian Journal of Psychology,
Tripathi, L. B. Vol. 53(2): 65-76.
1978
1980 Psychological Consequences of Prolonged Deprivation, Agra: Na-
tional Psychological Corporation.
Moulik, T. K. "Psychology of poverty in India", U. Pareek (Ed.), A Survey of
1981 Research in Psychology: 1971-1976, 655-681, Bombay: Popular
Prakashan.
Mundle, S. Land, labour and level of living in rural Bihar, Paper presented at
1984 National Seminar on Poverty and Development with Special Ref-
erence to Eastern Region, A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies,
Patna.
Nauriyal, D. K. and "Dimensions of poverty: The Indian Case", Man and Development,
Raghuvanshi, C. S. 9(3): 1-12.
1987
Pandey, J. and "Social psychological responses to perceived and objective in-
Singh, A. K. dicators of poverty in India", R. I. Langunes and Y. H. Poortinga
1985 (Eds.), From a Different Perspective: Studies of Behaviour Across
Cultures, 148-156, Lisse: Swets Zeitlinger.
632 Anup Kumar Singh and Janak Pandey

Pareek, U. "Poverty and motivation: Figure and ground", V. L. Allen (Ed.),

1970 Psychological Factors in Poverty, 300-317, Chicago: Markham
Publishing Company.
Pareek, U. and Socioeconomic Status Scale, New Delhi: Mansayan.
Trivedi, G.
1964
Sahu, S. Cultural Deprivation Scale, Unpublished manuscript, Department
1975 of Psychology, Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar.
Shanmugham, T. E. War on Poverty: Role of Psychologist, Presidential Address, Sec-
1976 tion of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Indian Science
Congress Association, Andhra Pradesh University, Waltair.
Shirpurker, G. R. "Construction and standardization of a scale for measuring
1967 socioeconomic status of farm families", Indian Journal of Extension
Education, 3(1-2): 16-24.
Singh, A. K. and "Poverty, coping, and defence", Journal of Social Psychology.
Pandey, J.
1989 (in press)
Sinha, D. Study of Psychological Dimensions of Poverty: A Challenge and
1975 Necessity, Presidential address, 13th Annual conference of Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, Karnataka University, Dharwar.
Tripathi, R. C. "The concept of deprivation: Some issues", D. Sinha, R. C.
1982 Tripathi, and G. Misra (Eds.), Deprivation: Its Social Roots and
Psychological Consequences, 17-23 op. cit.
Verma, M. "Socioeconomic factors and development of aggression in
1980 children", Social Change, 9(4): 13-17.
Whiteman, M. and "Social disadvantage as related to intellectual and language
Deutsch, M development", M. Deutsch et al. (Eds.), Social Class, Race, and
1968 Psychological Development, 88-114, New York: Holt Rinehart.